Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!heurikon!mikem
From: mikem@heurikon.UUCP (mikem)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: The Evidence on Pornography
Message-ID: <139@heurikon.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 09:45:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: heurikon.139
Posted: Thu Sep 18 09:45:42 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Sep-86 22:49:06 EDT
References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> <1547@mtx5a.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Heurikon Corp., Madison WI
Lines: 70
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:171 net.legal:3601

in message <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) says:

> And that seems to be the question that the net.singles groups revolves around:
> should over 200 years of law, in which both the legislative and judicial
> branches have a hand, be discarded on a whim that is just a few years old and
> that already shows some signs (if not yet conclusive evidence) of causing
> harm?

No, I think we should discard 200 years of meddling with the liberty of
the citizens of the United States and get back to the basic principles
upon which this country was founded.  Namely, personal liberty - the
recognition of the rights of the individual.

> is one as personal and private as human sexuality where we are *known* to have
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Because it is personal and private, I don't want the government to get involved.
Saying it is personal and private implies that the only one who can decide 
for me is ME.

> (I can hear the resounding chorus of *no*!)  Given the involvement of new
> technologies (photography and cinematography/electronic video) doesn't it
> make sense to take it easy?  And given the testimony of individuals who
> claim to have been harmed, along with both observation by the commission
> and testimony by law enforcement officials regarding the unhealthy conditions
> in retail outlets, isn't there reason enough to at least consider bringing
> the industry under public scrutiny?

Excuse the sarcasm:

How about this new technology which allows people (total strangers!) to
communicate over great distances via a computer network?  Just think about
all of the new technology involved!  It pretty much boggles my mind.
Have you seen any research on this?  What are the effects of long term 
use of this medium?
What about eye-strain, risk of harmful electromagnetic radiation from
terminals, etc?  Isn't it in our best interest to limit our access to such
a potentially addicting and harmful thing?  Shouldn't we get the government
involved in this?   A government agency could regulate the access and 
distribution of messages on the net.  Sort of a general moderator for the 
whole net.  :-)  <-- applies to entire previous paragraph.

More seriously, why is sex special?  Many people seem to feel that the first
ammendment covers everything but sex.  Why should the publication of 
explicit material be limited to that which the "average" person is not
offended by?  Why don't we do this for other forms of expression?
Can you imagine what it would be like if every product of man's (or woman's)
creative mind had to be approved by a panel of "average" people?
"I'm sorry Mr. Stravinsky, but that music is just a bunch of random
notes, it has no beat and is difficult to dance to." :-)
(Most obscenity laws refer to the "average persn's" notion of obscenity.)
They also refer to "lustful thoughts or desires".  Something is obscene
if it incites lustful thoughts.  They are trying to legislate what I am allowed
to think.  Sounds like thought control to me.  Why should the suppression
of ideas be limited to sex?  If inciting other thoughts leads to illegal
actions should we suppress them too?


> Given the harms (disputed by a very few) of child pornography, coupled with

I don't dispute that child pornography is harmful and should be illegal.
All of what I say applies to consenting citizens.  Children are by definition
NOT consenting citizens as of course are people who are forced into doing
something.  In a case of force the crime is the use of force, and should
be prosecuted.

> 	from Mole End			Mark Terribile


                                  Michael W. Mayer